Bashing DSLRs is Fun!

tylerken

Veteran Member
Messages
6,680
Reaction score
17
Location
So, CA, US
Same subject FZ-50 vs DSLR - both 50% crops

FZ-50 420mm, ISO 100, 1/640, f/5.6



DSLR 400mm, ISO 400, 1/3200, f5.6



The FZ-50 is obviously the winner in this contest. Isn't it!?!

--
Ken
Canon Mark IIn + 350D + 400D, EF-S 17-85 IS, 100-400L IS, 400 5.6L
Panasonic FZ20 & FZ50
http://ken.smugmug.com/
 
Much as I think dSLR's are overrated, in this case the dSLR bokeh is
better, IMHO.
A good photo is a good photo regardless of the camera used to take it. I'm amuzed that so many people spend so much time trying to prove that Panasonics are in some way superior to DSLRs, because they clearly aren't.

--
Ken
Canon Mark IIn + 350D + 400D, EF-S 17-85 IS, 100-400L IS, 400 5.6L
Panasonic FZ20 & FZ50
http://ken.smugmug.com/
 
Much as I think dSLR's are overrated, in this case the dSLR bokeh is
better, IMHO.
A good photo is a good photo regardless of the camera used to take
it. I'm amuzed that so many people spend so much time trying to prove
that Panasonics are in some way superior to DSLRs, because they
clearly aren't.

--
Ken
Canon Mark IIn + 350D + 400D, EF-S 17-85 IS, 100-400L IS, 400 5.6L
Panasonic FZ20 & FZ50
http://ken.smugmug.com/
Yeah, 50-50 about covers it, as to quality.

Then, there's convenience........

: 8^) -E
--

 
Feather details are greater on the dSLR. Color would be nice somewhere in between. However, only seeing 1 of these photos instead of a side by side you'd have a tough time telling which is which. I like both.
On another note; cost and portability win every time with a bridge camera.

--
http://www.pbase.com/metalfab/panasonic_fz18
 
FZ-50 420mm, ISO 100, 1/640, f/5.6
DSLR 400mm, ISO 400, 1/3200, f5.6
I'm going to ask, I guess, a really dumb question. Dumb, because I can't fathom any possible answer.

Why would you shoot at 400 ISO and 1/3200th of a second with the DSLR?

The only thing in common with this so-called comparison is the F-stop. Shoot the same picture with both cameras at the same ISO and let's see whatcha got.

Sorry, this is yet another apples and oranges comparo. Nothing personal.

mike
 
On another note; cost and portability win every time with a bridge
camera.
There are trade-offs. If you need the performance edge the portability factor loses if you can't get the shots you want or need. I won't get into the social aspects of costs with you.

--
Ken
Canon Mark IIn + 350D + 400D, EF-S 17-85 IS, 100-400L IS, 400 5.6L
Panasonic FZ20 & FZ50
http://ken.smugmug.com/
 
FZ-50 420mm, ISO 100, 1/640, f/5.6
DSLR 400mm, ISO 400, 1/3200, f5.6
I'm going to ask, I guess, a really dumb question. Dumb, because I
can't fathom any possible answer.

Why would you shoot at 400 ISO and 1/3200th of a second with the DSLR?
Because I can. When shooting hand held with a 400mm lens on a DSLR, a higher shutter speed helps overcome the lack of IS and aids in produciing sharper results.
The only thing in common with this so-called comparison is the
F-stop. Shoot the same picture with both cameras at the same ISO and
let's see whatcha got.
Sorry, this is yet another apples and oranges comparo. Nothing personal.
I relied on the metering systems of both cameras. They chose the acceptable shutter speed. Since the focal length and F-stop were roughly equivelent the test remaims valid.

--
Ken
Canon Mark IIn + 350D + 400D, EF-S 17-85 IS, 100-400L IS, 400 5.6L
Panasonic FZ20 & FZ50
http://ken.smugmug.com/
 
Because I can. When shooting hand held with a 400mm lens on a DSLR, a
higher shutter speed helps overcome the lack of IS and aids in
produciing sharper results.
1/500" should be plenty fast enough.
I relied on the metering systems of both cameras. They chose the
acceptable shutter speed. Since the focal length and F-stop were
roughly equivelent the test remaims valid.
When I first saw your OP, I thought, "Man, this is really tongue-in-cheek, sort of a putdown of some of the crazy camparos in Pany Talk recently." Doesn't appear to be the case. Put this up in the Nikon Forum, then count the seconds it'll take for them to laugh you out of the room. ; )
-------------
Nice FZ image, BTW.
 
Not even close. At first I was thoroughly confused because I thought you were serious. The DSLR image is clearly better. I expected it to be better, but it's quite amazing how much better it really is.

Still - the struggle that I would have as an FZ50 owner is the financial cost of an upgrade vs the improvement in picture quality. I'm going to guess that after selling the FZ50 and purchasing a half decent DSLR I'll be looking at a good $1,500 to $2,000.

As an absolute amateur I'm not sure that I could justify that cost for the upgrade in picture quality.

Thanks for posting though, striking difference in pictures.
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hheywood
 
Lol Ken... you can't shoot JPEG with FZ50 and then compare with heavyweight DSLR ... also, 5.6 on FZ50 is not same as 5.6 on DSLR ... with DSLR you probably need to go up to 16 or above to match 5.6 DOF on FZ .... another point is that 5.6 probably is just out of diffraction limit of FZ50 . Anyway, I think if you have any chance of matching DSLR quality here even in small size you will at least have to shoot RAW and process them carefully.... FZ50 JPEG will almost never be as good as DSLR JPEG.
I agree, a lot of DSLR v FZ debate is pointless.
aftab
All Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/
Selected Photos
http://aftab.zenfolio.com/
This very sentence is false....
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top